Thishighly misogynistic billproposed by the Council of Islamic Ideology (which has a constitutional duty to advise the government and Parliament on Islamic issues) is push-back against the Protection of Women Against Violence Actpassed this spring in Pakistan’s Punjab. The council’s bill that was put forward a few days ago asserts that the law should permit a husband to beat his wife if:
[ul]
[li]She defies his command[/li][li]She refuses to dress as he wishes[/li][li]She refuses to have sex with him other than for religious reasons[/li][li]She does not bathe after sex or during menstruation[/li][li]She does not wear a hijab[/li][li]She speaks with strangers[/li][li]She speaks loudly enough to be heard by strangers[/li][li]She gives money without her husband’s authorization[/li][/ul]
This is a prime example of how religion is used for power and control – a bunch of old men dictating how men should control women because people (men and women) believe that there is a god, that these old men know what god wants, and that there will be hell to pay if the dictates of these old men are not followed.
And this is a perfect example of why it is NECESSARY to call bullshit on any religion when 5,000 year old “traditions” come into play. (I’m also looking at you, Quiverfull peeps. Sounds very much like what happens in Islam.)
The Pakistani government entity that is the “Council of Islamic Theology.”
The membership from wiki with link date of january 2015.
It is an example of conservative government forces perhaps.
religion here is only a partial excuse. the perfectly “secular” laws in the west have permitted right through the end of the 20th century the husbands hitting the wives and the children. So the west has evolved, it is a good thing. Not as good is the presentsion to get on the high horse that other regions of the world, particularly poorer have not moved at the same speed or the amnesia about such changes.
Exactly. Why are there none? It’s not the water, nor is it necessarily the region or tradition (as I jokingly mentioned). Religion provides limits, especially towards women and those who do not share the same code/honor/set of rules, etc. Why impose limits towards those that follow these rules? Um, because… religion. And the circle of pseudo-logic continues.
First, look to your facts - funny the asserted assumption becomes a fact…
second one asks the Pakistani government about the composition of this body as it is a Pakistani gouvernement body created in the 1960s…
Well the wife agreed to “obey”. She simply needs to follow the following rules, then beatings will not be necessary.
For example rule 11 from the following link:
***[11.) Make the evening his. Never complain if he comes home late or goes out to dinner, or other places of entertainment without you. Instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure and his very real need to be at home and relax.]
Well, the “Council” has no power to do anything, the ones who have power to legislate are Parliament and the provincial assemblies and they have constitutionally mandated requirement to have 1/3 reserved seats for women (I am a bit uncomfortable about that, I think too often those have been used to give seats to party faithful).
As for why they exist, no one has any idea. We need comedy I suppose.
I just don’t get how they needed bullet points past the first one.
Obviously the whole thing is evil; I’m revolted as a human in general, and as the father of a daughter in particular. I’m just saying, once they grant that he can beat her for defying his commands, why add that he can beat her for refusing to dress as he wishes? Just tell her how to dress, and beat her if she does otherwise! You don’t want her speaking with strangers? Well, then, (a) say so, and (b) beat her if she disobeys!
Again, it’s monstrous. But if you’re going to be monstrous, why be redundant?
With all the religious controversy I’ve been hearing about from wife beating to birth control to gay bashing and whatever else they’re up to, I can’t keep track anymore. Can somebody please remind me which religion is currently leading the contest to become the most reviled, heinous example of institutionalized depravity on the planet these days?
I tend to think of religion as an amplifier used by some people to attain and hold power and control. Unfortunately, religion is inherently irrational, so it is relatively easy for irrational ideas to become beliefs and customs. Once cultural and societal norms are formed around religion, the game is over as far as rationality goes – thus the conservative Christian rabid religious right in the USA, or the radical conservative Isam in much of the mid-east, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since religions tend to go hand in hand with the development of societies, they lay at the heart of how nations decide their laws, which very often means that religions impede rational human rights development.
It’s hard enough to change the way things are. It’s extremely difficult to change the way things are when God is on the other side.